• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Abortion (1 Viewer)

boris

Banned
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
4,671
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
yes, animals are a source of food.
an animal is not capable of having a conversation with you. of thinking rationally. a foetus, if allowed to properly mature, will.
right here
is where you said this

by following that reasoning, a not allowing a sperm cell to continue to life is = to infanticide

i dont think i can simplify my language any more for you so i am sorry if you are having trouble following
 

na110793

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
377
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Indeed. Why can't people have the right to die if they so choose?

Person: "I want to die."
State: "Nope, sorry, we can't let you do that."
Person: "Don't I get a say in what happens to me?"
State: "No you don't get to choose whether you die or not"

"Forcing someone to live against their will is as bad as forcing them to die against their will". This is something I believe and it's a line I'm quite fond of.
move to the Netherlands. they can kill you with a rollercoaster. not even kidding

I'm fond of this line:
"Civil liberties are a social construct".
 

Annihilist

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
449
Location
Byron Bay
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
All I did was say Townie hated women, how was I to know that would turn it into an all in brawl about abortion?
You contributed to derailing the thread by not moving the debate to here. Which is fine, but all I said was that you helped derail the thread. Which is a perfectly accurate observation.
 

na110793

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
377
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
right here
is where you said this

by following that reasoning, a not allowing a sperm cell to continue to life is = to infanticide

i dont think i can simplify my language any more for you so i am sorry if you are having trouble following
but it takes sperm cells and ovum cells to produce a child. by your reasoning, every time women have their periods they are committing infantcide.

I don't think you understand how a foetus develops...
 

mirakon

nigga
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,221
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
I believe the point is that its hard to determine a point after sex by which u can say before this there is no potential for a newborn and afterwards there is
 

Annihilist

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
449
Location
Byron Bay
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
move to the Netherlands. they can kill you with a rollercoaster. not even kidding

I'm fond of this line:
"Civil liberties are a social construct".
Um, cool. Netherlands...how is that relevant? I mean if someone wants to be killed with a roller coaster and they have expressed wishes to do so then I don't see the fucking problem.

Well in a sense they are. What I don't understand is how a state can take away someone's right to make choices about their life, based on a premise which they value but others may not. That's what I illustrated in that hypothetical dialogue - if someone wants to die, the state often won't let them. That's why euthanasia, abortion, suicide*, murder and cannibalism are all illegal, regardless of whether consent was given. I don't believe governments have the right to impose their personal values on others by restricting choices of individuals based on the values held by the current government.

Civil liberties are a social construct, of course. Which means they can be altered. Why not alter them to allow people to make choices about their own life based on the circumstances of their own life and their own critical and emotional analysis of their own life. We don't need to be putting so much effort into preventing people from doing things we don't like. We don't have the right to stop people from doing things just because we don't like them.

*this has been amended.
 

na110793

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
377
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Um, cool. Netherlands...how is that relevant? I mean if someone wants to be killed with a roller coaster and they have expressed wishes to do so then I don't see the fucking problem.

Well in a sense they are. What I don't understand is how a state can take away someone's right to make choices about their life, based on a premise which they value but others may not. That's what I illustrated in that hypothetical dialogue - if someone wants to die, the state often won't let them. That's why euthanasia, abortion, suicide*, murder and cannibalism are all illegal, regardless of whether consent was given. I don't believe governments have the right to impose their personal values on others by restricting choices of individuals based on the values held by the current government.

Civil liberties are a social construct, of course. Which means they can be altered. Why not alter them to allow people to make choices about their own life based on the circumstances of their own life and their own critical and emotional analysis of their own life. We don't need to be putting so much effort into preventing people from doing things we don't like. We don't have the right to stop people from doing things just because we don't like them.

*this has been amended.
the accused may say that there was consent, but the judge/jury doesn't know this
 

jason2kool

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
186
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Um, cool. Netherlands...how is that relevant? I mean if someone wants to be killed with a roller coaster and they have expressed wishes to do so then I don't see the fucking problem.

Well in a sense they are. What I don't understand is how a state can take away someone's right to make choices about their life, based on a premise which they value but others may not. That's what I illustrated in that hypothetical dialogue - if someone wants to die, the state often won't let them. That's why euthanasia, abortion, suicide*, murder and cannibalism are all illegal, regardless of whether consent was given. I don't believe governments have the right to impose their personal values on others by restricting choices of individuals based on the values held by the current government.

Civil liberties are a social construct, of course. Which means they can be altered. Why not alter them to allow people to make choices about their own life based on the circumstances of their own life and their own critical and emotional analysis of their own life. We don't need to be putting so much effort into preventing people from doing things we don't like. We don't have the right to stop people from doing things just because we don't like them.

*this has been amended.
So you believe individuals should have absolute control of their body? But what your forgetting is absolute control of your body doesn't exist, There are laws that don't permit you from committing suicide, or selling your body parts so you don't have that control regardless. Killing someone living inside you shouldn't be any different. Furthermore, the baby is not even part of his mother's body, he has his own blood type and DNA and rights, so he can't be attributed as your body part.
 

boris

Banned
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
4,671
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
but it takes sperm cells and ovum cells to produce a child. by your reasoning, every time women have their periods they are committing infantcide.

I don't think you understand how a foetus develops...
I am well aware.
A foetus requires a female human host to develop into a baby. Why is this different to a sperm well needing an ovum to fertilise?
A baby requires a human carer for several years to develop into an adult, otherwise it will die. Why is this different?
 

na110793

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
377
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
I am well aware.
A foetus requires a female human host to develop into a baby. Why is this different to a sperm well needing an ovum to fertilise?
A baby requires a human carer for several years to develop into an adult, otherwise it will die. Why is this different?
avoiding my point. you are digressing and making no sense whatsoever

but anyway
 

boris

Banned
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
4,671
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
So you believe individuals should have absolute control of their body? But what your forgetting is absolute control of your body doesn't exist, There are laws that don't permit you from committing suicide, or selling your body parts so you don't have that control regardless. Killing someone living inside you shouldn't be any different. Furthermore, the baby is not even part of his mother's body, he has his own blood type and DNA and rights, so he can't be attributed as your body part.
lol yes he is arguing against those laws, in essence
 

boris

Banned
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
4,671
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
avoiding my point. you are digressing and making no sense whatsoever

but anyway
how am i in any way, avoiding your point?

can you really not comprehend what i am saying? the premise you provided 50 posts ago can easily lead to the conclusion that causing the death of any entity that could potentially result in the life of a person is the same as infanticide

do you understand
 

Annihilist

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
449
Location
Byron Bay
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
the accused may say that there was consent, but the judge/jury doesn't know this
Yeah yeah yeah, there's a sticky quandary to this. Personally, I'm pretty pro-death so I don't see a problem.

How about a written and signed consent is required? For euthanasia this might be a problem but we can work something out for that. It's a bit fiddly but it can be done. There are ways to give people civil liberties without creating social chaos, and I think we need to explore that instead of making everything we don't like illegal.

So you believe individuals should have absolute control of their body? But what your forgetting is absolute control of your body doesn't exist, There are laws that don't permit you from committing suicide, or selling your body parts so you don't have that control regardless. Killing someone living inside you shouldn't be any different. Furthermore, the baby is not even part of his mother's body, he has his own blood type and DNA and rights, so he can't be attributed as your body part.
Yes. And you're right it doesn't exist. I believe that should be changed. And you can argue that a foetus a person or a separate entity, but I think killing a foetus is infinitely preferable to killing a grown person. A foetus doesn't have thoughts feelings or awareness or whatnot. And if you let them live them they will grow up an unwanted child. My belief is it should be the choice of the woman. Not the choice of the state. And I don't consider it murder.

Also: "There are laws that don't permit you from committing suicide".

"Laws that don't permit you from". What does that even mean? Logically it follows that it means there are laws which don't allow you to not commit suicide. Which means you are legally obliged to commit suicide. I'm sure that's not what you meant.
 

na110793

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
377
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
how am i in any way, avoiding your point?

can you really not comprehend what i am saying? the premise you provided 50 posts ago can easily lead to the conclusion that causing the death of any entity that could potentially result in the life of a person is the same as infanticide

do you understand
yes i do.
sperm and ovum are essential for life.

but you are bringing up extremely retarded situations.

in essence, what you are saying is that if a woman has her period (as she does) and if a man takes a bat

they are killing kids.

did you by any chance go to a state run school in the state of Utah or Nebraska?
because your views mirror what they teach instead of sex ed
 

boris

Banned
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
4,671
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
sweet jesus you are dumb

those arent my 'views' lol
 

boris

Banned
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
4,671
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
you provided the premise
i expanded upon it, to show that it was flawed

do
you
understand
 

Selador

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
207
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Pro. Current laws are fine.
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
83 Administering drugs etc to woman with intent

Whosoever:
unlawfully administers to, or causes to be taken by, any woman, whether with child or not, any drug or noxious thing, or
unlawfully uses any instrument or other means,
with intent in any such case to procure her miscarriage,
shall be liable to imprisonment for ten years.
'In NSW an abortion is not ‘unlawful’ if the accused has an honest and reasonable belief that an abortion would avoid serious risk of danger to the woman’s life or physical or mental health based on ‘economic, social or medical grounds or reasons’.'
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top